From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1D3F7EE3; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:15:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 129EC77889; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:15:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.117.44] (ovpn-117-44.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.117.44]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE21C2156889; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:14:58 +0000 (UTC) From: "Eelco Chaudron" To: "Alejandro Lucero" Cc: dev , stable@dpdk.org, "Burakov, Anatoly" , "Maxime Coquelin" , "Ferruh Yigit" Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:14:57 +0200 Message-ID: <24D4D56B-BE3A-43DC-AEEE-A063A11C73EC@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1530708838-2682-1-git-send-email-alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> <1530708838-2682-2-git-send-email-alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.6 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.1]); Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:15:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.1]); Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:15:00 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'10.11.54.6' DOMAIN:'int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com' HELO:'smtp.corp.redhat.com' FROM:'echaudro@redhat.com' RCPT:'' Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3 1/6] mem: add function for checking memsegs IOVAs addresses X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:15:01 -0000 On 10 Jul 2018, at 12:52, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Eelco Chaudron > wrote: > >> >> >> On 10 Jul 2018, at 11:34, Alejandro Lucero wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Eelco Chaudron >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On 4 Jul 2018, at 14:53, Alejandro Lucero wrote: >>>> >>>> A device can suffer addressing limitations. This functions checks >>>> >>>>> memsegs have iovas within the supported range based on dma mask. >>>>> >>>>> PMD should use this during initialization if supported devices >>>>> suffer addressing limitations, returning an error if this function >>>>> returns memsegs out of range. >>>>> >>>>> Another potential usage is for emulated IOMMU hardware with >>>>> addressing >>>>> limitations. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero >>>>> Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov >>>>> --- >>>>> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memory.c | 33 >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h | 3 +++ >>>>> lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map | 1 + >>>>> 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memory.c >>>>> b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memory.c >>>>> index fc6c44d..f5efebe 100644 >>>>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memory.c >>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memory.c >>>>> @@ -109,6 +109,39 @@ >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> +/* check memseg iovas are within the required range based on dma >>>>> mask >>>>> */ >>>>> +int >>>>> +rte_eal_check_dma_mask(uint8_t maskbits) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + >>>>> + const struct rte_mem_config *mcfg; >>>>> + uint64_t mask; >>>>> + int i; >>>>> + >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I think we should add some sanity check to the input maskbits, i.e. >>>> [64,0) >>>> or [64, 32]? What would be a reasonable lower bound. >>>> >>>> >>>> This is not a user's API, so any invocation will be reviewed, but I >>>> guess >>> adding a sanity check here does not harm. >>> >>> Not sure about lower bound but upper should 64, although it does not >>> make >>> sense but it is safe. Lower bound is not so problematic. >>> >>> >>> >>>> + /* create dma mask */ >>>> >>>>> + mask = ~((1ULL << maskbits) - 1); >>>>> + >>>>> + /* get pointer to global configuration */ >>>>> + mcfg = rte_eal_get_configuration()->mem_config; >>>>> + >>>>> + for (i = 0; i < RTE_MAX_MEMSEG; i++) { >>>>> + if (mcfg->memseg[i].addr == NULL) >>>>> + break; >>>>> >>>> >> Looking at some other code, it looks like NULL entries might exists. >> So >> should a continue; rather than a break; be used here? >> >> > I do not think so. memsegs are allocated sequentially, so first with > addr > as NULL implies no more memsegs. I was referring to the mem walk functions, rte_memseg_list_walk(). Maybe some having more experience with this area can review/comment. > > >> >> + >>>>> + if (mcfg->memseg[i].iova & mask) { >>>>> + RTE_LOG(INFO, EAL, >>>>> + "memseg[%d] iova %"PRIx64" out of >>>>> range:\n", >>>>> + i, mcfg->memseg[i].iova); >>>>> + >>>>> + RTE_LOG(INFO, EAL, "\tusing dma mask >>>>> %"PRIx64"\n", >>>>> + mask); >>>>> + return -1; >>>>> + } >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + return 0; >>>>> +} >>>>> + >>>>> /* return the number of memory channels */ >>>>> unsigned rte_memory_get_nchannel(void) >>>>> { >>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h >>>>> b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h >>>>> index 80a8fc0..b2a0168 100644 >>>>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h >>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h >>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,9 @@ struct rte_memseg { >>>>> */ >>>>> unsigned rte_memory_get_nrank(void); >>>>> >>>>> +/* check memsegs iovas are within a range based on dma mask */ >>>>> +int rte_eal_check_dma_mask(uint8_t maskbits); >>>>> + >>>>> /** >>>>> * Drivers based on uio will not load unless physical >>>>> * addresses are obtainable. It is only possible to get >>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map >>>>> b/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map >>>>> index f4f46c1..aa6cf87 100644 >>>>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map >>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map >>>>> @@ -184,6 +184,7 @@ DPDK_17.11 { >>>>> >>>>> rte_eal_create_uio_dev; >>>>> rte_bus_get_iommu_class; >>>>> + rte_eal_check_dma_mask; >>>>> rte_eal_has_pci; >>>>> rte_eal_iova_mode; >>>>> rte_eal_mbuf_default_mempool_ops; >>>>> -- >>>>> 1.9.1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >>